Rodney Davis

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, you can tell we have got some dedicated Members of Congress here to debate this bill. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Garbarino), my great friend and one of the newest Members of Congress.

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, vote ``no'' on this disastrous piece of legislation. Obviously, the timekeeper didn't keep the time right; I should have more. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gonzalez), my good friend, who, in spite of once being an Ohio State Buckeye and an Indianapolis Colt, it took him coming to Congress to finally win a football championship.

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, last week, this House voted on a bill that was sold as pandemic relief, yet less than 9 percent of that bill was for public health funding to combat COVID-19, and $140 million of that bill is going to a failed rail project in Speaker Pelosi's district. This week, the Democrats have put forth a bill titled ``For the People,'' but the bill has nearly 800 pages of provisions that take election decisions away from State and local officials and put them in the hands of the Federal Government. It attacks Americans' First Amendment right to free speech, and it publicly funds Members of Congress' campaigns using corporate dollars. There is a pattern emerging. The Democrats are bringing bills to the floor under the guise of being for the people, but their bill actually benefits the politicians. As I said, I have many issues with H.R. 1, including the mandates this bill puts on States and provisions that attack our First Amendment rights. But I want to focus on one particular provision in this bill right now, and that is how the Democrats' number one priority is a bill that funds their own campaigns. H.R. 1 would launder corporate dollars through the U.S. Treasury and use those dollars to publicly fund congressional campaigns. Based on 2020 fundraising numbers, that creates access to more than $7 million in laundered corporate dollar public funds to bolster my colleagues' campaign coffers. This is the 6-to-1 match program that my colleague talked about for small-dollar donations. I know when I speak with my constituents back home, establishing a program that helps me acquire more money for my campaign is not what they think the Federal Government should be working on. At the Rules Committee, because this bill did not go through regular order and did not receive a markup in the House Administration Committee, we submitted amendments to not only strike this program altogether and prevent sitting Members of Congress from financially benefiting from this bill, but also requiring any increase in corporate fines to be used to help the pandemic relief. I can think of a lot better ways to spend the $7 million that would be just for my district, like pandemic relief. We could maybe reopen our schools or rebuild a fund to help women's shelters and rape crisis centers. Amazingly, Democrats wouldn't even allow these amendments for a vote on the floor today. It is disappointing because I had hoped that we could all agree that helping our country through this pandemic or just simply focusing on the American people is more important than lining our own campaign coffers. Clearly, this bill is not for the benefit of the people, but it is for the politicians' campaign coffers. I also want to note that this bill is opposed by 16 secretaries of state, nine former FEC Commissioners, the National Disability Rights Network, the Institute for Free Speech, and more than 130 other nonprofit organizations, but supported by Indivisible, a group whose sole purpose is to elect Democrats. I think this speaks volumes as to why my friends on the other side of the aisle are rushing this bill through with little debate and next to no input from Republicans. Despite what my friends on the other side of the aisle continue to tell Americans, this bill is not for the people. This bill is for the politicians. I urge a ``no'' vote on this bill. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Loudermilk), a great member of the House Administration Committee, and my good friend.

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman.

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Tenney), the newest member of this Congress.

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Valadao), a refreshing sight to see back on the House floor.

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy). Hopefully, he will soon be the majority leader or actually the Speaker of the House. He is not part of that California corruption I mentioned earlier.

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from New York.

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas), a very good friend.

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Arizona (Mrs. Lesko), my good friend.

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, in spite of my hesitance to trust this timing, can I get a time check to see how much we have left?

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Womack), my good friend.

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from the great State of Minnesota (Mr. Emmer), my good friend.

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, just for the viewers on C-Span who wondered why time stopped here in the House for that minute the majority leader spoke, I want to remind them all that is what we call the majority leader's magic minute. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Pfluger), my good friend and one of the newest Members.

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Steil), another member of the Committee on House Administration.

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Biggs), my good friend.

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I do also have a stack of letters in opposition. I will include them in the Record. I won't go through each of them. Frank LaRose, Ohio Secretary of State, Columbus OH, For Immediate Release: Thursday, February 25, 2021. LaRose Calls on Congress to Reject Federal Takeover of Elections House Resolution 1 Would Bring Sweeping, Unworkable and Unfunded Change Across the Nation's 50 Unique Election Systems, Causing Chaos and Damaging Voter Confidence Columbus.--Today, Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose called on the United States Congress to vote against House Resolution 1, a bill that would effectively take over control of how states conduct elections. HR 1 imposes significant changes that ignore both the United States Constitution and the unique election systems across the 50 states in an effort to standardize how states vote. ``Ohio's November 2020 election was the most successful on record, but Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Majority Leader Chuck Schumer want to wipe it all away with a massive power-grab,'' said LaRose. ``Remember, each state election system is unique--shaped by time and trusted by their respective voters. Forcing uniform standards, procedures, and expectations into state election systems, some far different than others and not built for those requirements, is like forcing a square peg into a round hole. It won't work.'' Article 1, Section 4 of the Constitution states that ``[t]he Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof,'' but that ``the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.'' In Federalist Paper No. 59, Alexander Hamilton contended that such regulation was only necessary ``whenever extraordinary circumstances might render that interposition necessary to its safety''. Moreso, state-level elections and the election of the president have remained outside of the purview of congress. However, the question of whether it's even within the power of congress to take over how states run elections isn't even the most important question. Instead, the better question is ``should they?'' In the 59 presidential elections since 1789, each has resulted in the successful election of a President. Voting laws have evolved across the 50 states, providing more and more access, security, and accuracy. Over time, each of those same 50 states have created their own unique election systems. From who administers the elections, to how votes are cast, to how a vote is protected--each system was born of federalism. Like human beings, no voting system is perfect. Improvements and changes happen as the people, working through their respective state legislatures, see fit. In Ohio, a state whose elections have long been under the national spotlight, we've developed a system which has ensured voters have confidence in the outcome of elections. As a result, voter turnout is at an all-time high, voter fraud and voter suppression are exceedingly rare, and our efforts to strengthen the security of our elections have become a national model. Even as we faced enormous challenges, last year we in Ohio ran the most successful election in our state's history. It's no surprise that other states are now coming to us to learn our best election practices so they can mirror them back home. That's how it's supposed to work. One of the great motivations of federalism is the state role as a laboratory for democracy, with each state innovating to become a better version of itself, and sharing those lessons with other states. That experiment has allowed our nation to become the best in the world. We need to keep that experiment going and encourage Ohio's congressional delegation to vote against House Resolution 1. Secretary LaRose will soon be sending a letter to congressional leadership and Ohio's congressional delegation requesting a no vote on HR 1.

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, no matter how many times Speaker Pelosi and the Democrats continue to say that there is not a publicly funded program to put money directly into her Members' congressional campaigns, it doesn't make her statement true. In this bill, it is the first-ever corporate money since 1907 that is laundered through the Federal Government, through the Department of Treasury, and goes right into our own congressional campaigns, up to $7 million, using 2020 numbers. Madam Speaker, I am angry that the Speaker continues to talk about States, like Georgia, following the law to make sure that their voter rolls are complete and accurate when, in her own home State of California, the corrupt secretary of state would not even commit to removing over 400,000 deceased or moved voters from the voter rolls, and many of them, if not all of them, got live ballots. This bill would place the corruption that we see in California and export it nationwide. Let me tell you, that corrupt secretary of state, huh, what a deal, we now call him a U.S. Senator. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy).

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Crenshaw).

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, today I rise to recognize a great accomplishment--the 90th anniversary of the National Library Service for the Blind and Print Disabled. In my role as ranking member of the Committee on House Administration, I've had the great opportunity to learn about the many services the Library of Congress provides--not only Congress, but to all Americans. One of its most notable and inspiring is the National Library Service, or NLS, an institution committed to serving readers with disabilities with the mission of ensuring ``that all may read''. The history of the NLS began in 1897, with the seventh Librarian of Congress, John Russell Young, established a reading room for the blind that included more than 500 books and music items in raised characters. By 1913, Congress began to require that one copy of each book be made in raised characters and available at the Library of Congress for educational use, but the collection had its limits, as it was only available to visit in-person. In 1930, Representative Ruth Pratt of New York and Senator Reed Smoot of Utah led a movement to make the collection more accessible across the country, leading to the passage of the Pratt-Smoot Act, which, on March 3, 1931, created what we know today as the National Library Service. In the 90 years since then, the NLS has expanded its service to reach children and individuals with additional types of physical and reading disabilities through not only books, but the world's largest accessible music materials collection. But this 90th anniversary isn't only a celebration of the NLS, it is a celebration of the central role local libraries play in connecting constituents across our entire country to its collection. In my own state, NLS and the Illinois State Library Talking Book and Braille Service provide service to nearly 10,000 individuals and institutions in Illinois. This includes more than 1,000 individual patrons and institutions in my district. Madam Speaker, the National Library Service for the Blind and Print Disabled is one of those magical programs that exemplify the good our government can do for all Americans, especially our sisters and brothers with disabilities. Today, I give them my congratulations on their 90th anniversary, my appreciation of their commitment to access and literacy, and my thanks for all they do.